King v. San Francisco Police Department ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TROY KING, Case No. 4:20-cv-06887-KAW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 33 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff King filed this case against Defendant City and County of 14 San Francisco. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP 15 Application"). (Dkt. No. 2.) On October 14, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP Application. 16 (Re: Dkt. No. 5.) 17 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and, on March 9, 2022, the undersigned granted the 18 motion and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by April 25, 2022. (Dkt. No. 27.) On 19 April 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to continue the deadline for filing to May 20 30, 2022, because he required additional time to obtain responses to Freedom of Information 21 requests from the San Francisco Department of Police Accountability in order to plead certain 22 factual allegations. (Dkt. No. 28 at 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and extended the 23 deadline to file the amended complaint to May 31, 2022. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1.) In doing so, the 24 undersigned informed Plaintiff that the documents requested were not necessary for amendment. 25 See id. Additionally, Plaintiff was advised that no further extensions would be provided, and that 26 the failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in the case being dismissed with 27 prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. 1 for an extension of time to file his first amended complaint. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 31.) On June 3, 2 || 2022, Plaintiff's request was denied, and he was ordered to show cause by June 17, 2022, why this 3 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 32 at 1.) Plaintiff was also ordered 4 || to file his first amended complaint by June 17, 2022. Jd. He was instructed that these must be 5 filed as separate documents. Jd. Plaintiff was then cautioned that “[t]he failure to both timely 6 || respond to this order to show cause and file the first amended complaint by June 17, 2022 7 will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.” /d. at 1-2 (all 8 || emphasis in original). 9 Plaintiff filed his untimely first amended complaint on June 18, 2022, and, to date, he has 10 || not responded to the order to show cause. (See First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 33.) Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or claim for a plaintiff's 12 || failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630- 5 13 31 (1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 14 || considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates 3 15 as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 16 Plaintiff was granted numerous extensions to file his first amended complaint, including an 3 17 additional extension after the undersigned told him there would be no more. The court-ordered 18 June 17, 2022 deadline was firm and final, and Plaintiff was advised that the failure to comply 19 would result in the dismissal of his case with prejudice. Despite this admonition, Plaintiff filed his 20 amended complaint one day late and did not respond to the order to show cause. 21 Accordingly, and as previously forewarned, Plaintiffs failure to both timely file his 22 amended complaint and respond to the order to show cause requires that this case be dismissed 23 with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 5, 2022 . 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28